“I’ve been injected with false hope so many fucking times I’ve lost count”

—–

via concealthefeeling

===========

“We all suffer from dreams.”

―

Bernard Cornwell

=============

Well. I am unequivocally a hope guy.

I believe leaders should be dealers of hope.

I believe hope is stronger than … well … pretty much anything.

I believe no one should be empty of hope.

I believe everyone deserves someone to give them hope when hopelessness seems the only thing available.

That said.

While, technically, false hope is a simple definition, realistically, there are a couple kinds of false hope.

Ok. Actually a shitload of derivatives of false hope.

In my words there would be, on one end of the spectrum, the more heinous version of ‘offering a fantasy unrealistic thought’ all the way over to the other bookend of ‘grasping for some glimmer of a semi-impossible reality.”

And then everything in between.

Hope, in even a false way, has many dimensions. And within any and all dimensions I would suggest even a sliver of hope has an exponential value beyond its mere size. It is quite possible that is where false hope becomes a little dangerous – that exponential value beyond its actual size.

Even with a glimmer hope can shine so bright it can blind you to the relentless onslaught of truths and realities. The truths which are more likely to showcase the horizon you are not only gonna be stuck looking at but visiting at some point <which is not the horizon you had actually hoped for>. But false hope is maybe even slightly more dangerous than that <if anything could be more dangerous than be blinded by reality>.

It actually is more likely to blind you on the important little shit than the meaningless bigger shit. False hope inevitably drives someone to focus on the bigger more audacious, and less likely, objective. This translates into the fact that same someone is more likely to overlook the smaller more important shit that would actually have increased the odds of attaining the hopeful objective.

How does that most often happen?

You are more likely to make some smaller, more impactful, poor choices and decisions hanging on to the sliver of false hope like it is a security blanket from the dangers of the reality you know must be out there.

By the way. That is the main difference between real hope and false hope – in the nuts & bolts aspects.

Real hope. Real hope, which truly has aspects of reality embedded within, actually permits you to navigate reality’s obstacles as you pursue the real hope of something. The real truth is that real hope does not blind, it actually opens your eyes. That said. Contrary to belief the most dangerous false hope is not the one which is complete fantasy it is the type that actually has some reality embedded.

Yeah. False hope is not always some fantasy.

Yeah. False hope is not always something with “no knowable chance of coming to fruition.”

Yeah. As I stated in the beginning someone who purposefully propagates a true fantasy, something so unrealistic, well, that really isn’t false hope that is propagating a lie. And exploiting a lie is a heinous act <but that is NOT false hope>.

But, to be clear, false hope can be propagated not as some false promise or lie but rather in a weird ‘well intended way.’ Say, for example, someone has been elevated to a position who is unqualified and untested … but has some tested competency.

They sit down at their new desk with all the intentions to succeed and all the words to suggest everyone should believe they will figure it out and succeed.

Well. Let’s say they have strong well intended hope that they will do the job and deliver what they promise.

That is a trickier version of false hope. It is propagated from someone who quite possibly has some false beliefs with regard to their own capabilities, but true belief in a good objective.

Uhm. But what if they do figure it out?

Well. They have delivered on hopes therefore, in some weird equation of Life, a false hope has becomes a real hope delivered.

Look. My point is hope is hope.

And unless someone is lying just to get everyone’s unrealistic hopes up, any hope is better than no hope. You can either not have hope, or have false hope, or real hope <albeit ‘real’ and ‘hope’ is a tenuous relationship>.

To be clear … all actions should be determined by reason, logic and practicality within a construct of strategic hope. That is the main Hope equation.

But hope is … well … hope. And it is hope for a reason. You want something better and at exactly the same time you are not omniscient nor a future prognosticator therefore any and all hoe is fraught with some potential falseness an some potential truth.

Hope, in and of itself, is and has always been an abstract concept.

Fortune, luck, hard work & preparation can guide someone toward hope or away from hope. Hope is never, and I mean NEVER, representative of certainty. Therefore to accept any hope, false of true, you have to accept the existence of possibilities – good and bad.

To me, in my pea like brain, all false hope implies is that the odds are against you and success is slim, yet, people believe they can overcome any and all obstacles. And, in that point, is where I could argue that false hope is as good as any hope out there.

For in that statement if that is what makes someone get out of bed in the morning and go out and try to do something good or even just try, well, that’s not false that is real.

Having led people I do not use hope flippantly even though I believe in hope as a leadership responsibility.

I do believe people want truth.

I do believe people want to feel safe.

I do believe people want someone to accept some of the burden of the bigger more visionary aspects of Life.

I do believe people want to contribute, personally, within progress toward a specific hope for something better.

I do believe Hope, false or true, is hope.

And we all deserve hope.

===========

“People aren’t interested in the truth.

They’re interested in what keeps them safe.

They’re interested in being looked after. They’re interested in a tale being spun… Mighty men have moments of great despair that common people do not want to know about.”

“Authority without wisdom is like a heavy axe without an edge, fitter to bruise than polish.”

―

Anne Bradstreet

==============

……… tweet from Republican National Party on June 14, 2018 ………….

Join or Else. If there is one common theme Trump and his merry band of corrupt amoral yahoos have espoused, this is it. Yeah. They may cloak it in some vapid superficial niceties, but, in the end, it “Join or Else.

That said. (stepping back to my words of January 2017)

———————————-

Well.

Yesterday was an interestingly disturbing day to begin “the new era of The United States of America.”

I listened to the Trump inauguration speech with growing horror. It had all the trappings of authoritarianism wrapped snugly in a blanket of patriotism & promises of wealth, security, strength and ‘greatness.’

I listened to it not just as a citizen but as a business guy.

Yeah. Populism can be seen in business just as it can be seen in politics. In business it can be called ‘the cult mentality’ and more often than not its leader is a ‘less-than-benevolent’ dictator. Let’s call it a ‘join, or else’ culture. You can drive membership in this culture a couple of ways … both grounded in fear.

Fear of losing <part 1>.Outsiders are trying to steal what is ours … people who don’t believe in what we believe in are trying to steal what is ours … join us because we are the people who count and matter.

I do not want to lose what is rightfully mine.

Fear of losing <part 2>.I am on the outside looking in and … well … holy shit … if I don’t join I am gonna lose everything <or be branded as a non joiner>.

I will join because if I don’t I am up shit creek without a paddle and lose what I have.

Businesses try this shit all the time. It is their way of building a strong culture, claiming it is inclusive, albeit inclusive is grounded by ‘a tight set of club rules.’ They will argue it is not a tight set but rather a basic construct which binds people in a good way … you call it tomato and I call it rotten. This Trump version of populism is, well, it goes beyond corporate cult culture. This version is close to being batshit crazy dangerous thought leadership.

Let’s look at the brochure and talk a minute with the Trump Club recruiter.

The cover of the brochure suggests an unstoppable America, driven solely by self-interest, in other words, our Club wins at all costs at the expense of anyone who stands in our way! <“if you want to win, join us” it says …>.

It further reads with threatening all those who might stand in the way of this Club and it’s winning/great objective. It contains an adamant stance of ‘no real choice’, i.e., a demanded unity not an asked for unity.

Yeah.

Some of the club benefits look awful good in the brochure … more & better jobs, stronger economy, stronger security, less business regulations and country pride. And then I turn over the brochure just to check out the legalese, the cost of the benefits as it were, to explore how the promises of the Club will be delivered.

The headline on the back of the brochure really wanted me to join this club … the message of “join today because today is the day the people become the rulers of this country.” I vaguely remember that being the call of the French Revolution but it sounds cool <although I could swear we, the people, have been voting in people as representatives for awhile>.

But. Whew. It sounds good. I like it.

It feels empowering and inspirational with the added comfort that I will no longer be one of “the forgotten people which will be forgotten no longer.” I know for sure that would like to not be forgotten and being part of a club would be nice and … well … gosh … uhm … now that I think about it … I didn’t know I had been forgotten.

The recruiter leans forward and says “of course you were, the intellectual globalist elite in Washington and around the world have been keeping you down … they don’t care about you … they have forgotten that it was you that made them part of the wealthy elite.”

Ok. But didn’t your Club President build his wealth off the backs of ‘forgotten people’ and … well … it seems like they aren’t any better off but he is a shitload better off, doesn’t it?

Oh … no, no, no … he appreciates everything they have done for him. Hey. And don’t you want to be wealthy too?

I look down at the brochure and I see the bolded ‘make wealthy’ words and have to ask the club recruiter, decked out in an ‘America first’ hat and neatly pressed ‘make America great’ uniform like shirt, I ask the recruiter … “this becoming wealthy thing … its sounds an awful lot like Amway.”

Oh, no, it is nothing like that at all. Our Club will make everything great for everyone and you will have great opportunities to get the wealth you have always deserved, but haven’t got, because the lazy, less than hard working elite will not get it anymore … we will make sure you get your fair share. Hey. Look at this picture of the Club President in his office … check out the gold curtains … the gold rug and the gold fixtures … that is wealth. That is what you can be part of!

Oh.

And, look, if you join today you get a hat <which you should wear as often as possible so that we can tell who is in the club and who isn’t>.

And, even better, we should have some additional pieces of apparel you can wear soon. In fact … we will have special uniforms & badges for the original club members to showcase their elite status in the club … everyone will want to wear them.

Ok. One last question … your club is “God’s chosen.” I didn’t know God chose … I thought he was all about equal among all men. Does this mean that other clubs don’t believe in God or does God just favor us? And does this mean I have to believe in your version of God and … well … what exactly is your version of God?

“Oh.

Well.

We are a Christian based club … but of course we accept anyone. But don’t forget … Christianity, above all, outlines all the values which lead to a better version of yourself … and, well, that is what we want all Club members to be able to achieve. Everyone should have values, don’t you think?”

Whew. This is fucking crazy shit going on

To be clear. A shitload of the club leaders and followers are going to try and draw some false comparisons and equivalents to past American heroes.

To be clear. This is significantly different than Thomas Jefferson’s plea for unity in his inaugural address in 1800 — “every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle.”

The Trump club has one principle and one opinion.

There is no room for anything else. More important than color of skin, religion, gender … this may actually be my root concern with ‘the club’.

The main principle?

Believe what I believe … or you are not a true believer.

That kind of seems to be the club. Kind of an “us versus them” attitude … uhm … although us <being a US citizen> is actually also them <being US citizens>.

“Oh no … no … why wouldn’t you believe in the United States of America if you lived in there? … everyone believes that. And if they don’t? … well … they should.”

Anyway. Oh. One last question. I didn’t hear it anywhere from the Club President or see it in the brochure … do you guys have a constitution?

Oh, we don’t need one. We just demand a ‘total allegiance to the Club’ … oh … which believes the same things as the country wants … so you should be all for it.”

(ME) Gosh. I am not sure I can join this club … I already have a constitution I live by … and my allegiance is, first & foremost, to that and not some Club and how they think. <period … end of statement>

Look. The one thing Trump was 100% right on is that January 20, 2017 was the dawn of a new era.

“Now comes the hour of action.”

That was the call for the Trump Club. “Join or else”is what should be heard.

Just to be clear.

I am a believer in God <however you want to define it>.

I am a patriot <however you want to define it>.

I am a proud American <however you want to define it>.

But I am not joining the club called “Trump America.”

In fact … I say ‘fuck you and your fucking club.’

As for what I will do? …………….

===============

“I was not born to be forced. I will breathe after my own fashion. Let us see who is the strongest.”

I stumbled across this thought years ago courtesy of Gloria, a 17 year old blogger in Canada:

“This is the phrase in my header, a personal motto of sorts. Honesty is the thing I value most in myself, my relationships and my life. I find true beauty in the truth, it may hurt but that does not detract from the crucial and utterly spectacular weight it holds. In my opinion, the most beautiful things are the ones that state the truth, holding back nothing. The world can be an ugly place, it is beautiful to acknowledge the truths.”

I am fairly sure I couldn’t have written anything better on this topic.

Honesty is the thing I value.

I find true beauty in the truth.

the most beautiful things are the ones that state the truth.

The world can be an ugly place.

it is beautiful to acknowledge the truths.

Well.

Pick your thought. Combine the thoughts. Whatever you do I would suggest keeping this thought is not a bad thing: Truth is beautiful.

<note: when originally posted September 2017 this began with “Trump is exhausting”, I am reposting because nothing has changed>

======================

“For in every adult there dwells the child that was, and in every child there lies the adult that will be.”

=

John Connolly

===========

“Refusing to grow up may be a form of rebellion. But really growing up could be a revolution.”

—

Susan Neiman

==================

Trump is exhausting. Not his presidency, not his administration, not his lack of policies or lack of any intellectual thought … just Trump.

Trump is exhausting.

I have decided he is exhausting because while I have continuously woken up every day hoping that today would be the day he would actually act like a president … okay … maybe just like a business leader … okay … I actually just want to wake up and see him act like an grownup.

Today, just another day, he wakes up and starts tweeting about London terrorism <which the UK prime minister and Scotland Yard have to respond “not very helpful”>, about an ESPN anchor, about his stupid wall, about … well … too numerous to count. And it isn’t just his lack-of-any-real-thought 140 character tweeting it is also his tween tone, teen sensitivity and teen words/grammar/punctuation.

He is not even the junior class president, he is just the gossip girl between classes.

And then, after my first response, I laughed. I laughed because I sudden realized that every teen in America must be celebrating in the halls of their high school.

Trump is one of them.

<and imagine the kitchen table conversations now taking place where parents are counseling their children only to hear “you are being so unfair !!! … I was just retweeting what was on the internet … c’mon Mom … Donald Trump does it … you are being unfair …!!!”>

Look.

Sit around a bunch of older folk and pretty soon the conversation will ease its way into how the younger generation is addicted to their phones, they cannot think for themselves, twitter is the universe of the mindless illiterate generation, twitter is the death of grammar & punctuation and they believe everything they see on the internet. Suffice it to say, older folk have a tendency to believe handheld technology is destroying young people’s minds <the implication is that ‘sensible grownups would never do the things that immature, selfish, entitled young people would do.’

<please note … I do not agree and that when I am involved in this discussion it is typically around that lat comment that my head explodes>

Anyway. Trump is what older folk actually fear & believe. Trump embodies teen twitterology. He cannot stop retweeting and cannot stop from commenting on anything and he tweets before thinking … and retweets anything that comes across his phone that looks interesting to retweet <regardless of whether he has actually checked that it is real or not> .

He can summarize his policies, with detail, in maybe 2 tweets issued as he sips his coffee in the morning.

After the coffee kicks in it will take about 6 tweets to change the previous 2.

And later in the day he gets to go on air and discuss how the world is unfair <only to him>.

This is Trump’s doom loop of consistent inconsistencies whereby the next tweet update absolves responsibility for the less than thoughtful tweets up to that point. And, of course, it would be unfair to judge him on his 25th tweet when he is already on his 1250th tweet.

Wow.

Dear Donald, have you thought about enrolling in high school again so you can troll the hallways as a bully and be the most important boy in the sophomore class? His immaturity almost makes teens look mature in contrast.

————————

Trump’s tweening behavior is tiring.

Exhausting.

I just want him to act like a grownup.

That’s it.

Yeah.

The bar is that low. Is that too much to ask?

I ask this because I know that being a grownup & “grownuphood” <a little different than adulthood> is all about becoming someone and something and unbecoming someone and something.

The truth about growing up is that we are constantly developing and un-developing and we continue to survive the missteps and step backs and figure out where & how to excel with momentary glimpses of what ‘could be’ … and that is what grownuphood is all about. And that is the ‘growing up’ I fear Donald J Trump is not doing <nor has ever done>.

If I could talk to Donald J <most likely using lots of pictures> I would tell him that grownuphood is much much better than okay. It is really good. It is much better because while some call it the burden of responsibility I call it “the freedom to enable my destiny.”

Yeah. Destiny kind of demands some grownupness <sorry about that Donald J>.

But the prize of grownuphood? You do with your destiny what you want. You can get angry if it doesn’t happen the way you want, but suffice it to say grownuphood is great because it is YOUR time to make it happen.

And I wish grownups would reclaim grownuphood and let the youth have their youth.

And I wish Trump would claim some grownuphood and let the youth have their youth.

“I still find each day too short for all the thoughts I want to think, all the walks I want to take, all the books I want to read and all the friends I want to see.”

—-

John Burroughs

==============

Well. I originally wrote this at the end of 2016 for 2017 and when rereading I said “Holy Shit!” <to myself> I want to say the same thing heading into 2018 <and now 2019!!>. So I am. I have gone back through and made some slight revisions but the thought still remains the same <2017 was almost as shitty a year as 2016>.

It seems at the end of every year I have written something about predictions for the upcoming year <some right and some wrong>. But this year it is about attitude and only about attitude for 20172018 2019.

Why? It would be incredibly easy to say 20162017 2018 sucked.

………. 2106 … and … 2017 ….and …. 2018 ……

I don’t care if you made gobs of money or got married or had some unfathomably awesome experience … you only had to look around you and see that pretty much everyone but you <and some nutjobs who still believe Trump is a smart businessman, smarter than the rest of us & authentic> had a shitty year.

Trump being elected president was only the bacteria ridden cherry on top of the melted sundae made with a scoop of your least favorite ice cream.

But back in July I said, unequivocally, I did not want to cancel 2016 <and I listed all the reasons why I would not> and just because some asshat was elected became president with the most powerful position in the world since then, a bunch of people passed away that seemed like it was too soon and there were a variety of misguided deeds and words randomly dispersed around the world, nothing has changed my mind. I did not want to cancel 2016 or even 2107 or even 2018.

And, maybe more importantly & relevant to how I view 2017 2018 2019, I do not believe because this year was shitty <and it was> that next year will be worse <although I was wrong about 2017 & 2018 which were just different versions of shitty>. Frankly, I don’t think it is healthy to fill your face book page or Instagram or even the coffee room in the office with all the negative perspective bullshit <or if you are a pseudo intellectual … be a nihilist>.

I will not unfollow anyone nor will I ‘de-friend’ anyone nor will I even stop talking with the doomsayers, in fact, I will take them on. I will not try and convert anyone to optimism but I certainly will lay out some pragmatic practical possibilities of what could be which do not suggest a shittier 20172018 2019 than 20162017 2018, but rather how each year is simply another year as a ‘work-in-progress.’

I read the news and watch far too many of the alternative universe spouting news channels.

Yes.

I live in the real world where bills can sometimes be tough to pay and friends lose jobs and die.

Yes.

I can certainly get discouraged on occasion and can get concerned about genuinely threatening things.

Yes.

I get a little nervous about the safety, security and direction of a nation I love.

Yes.

I am human and not out of touch.

No.

I do not think we are doomed or Armageddon is upon us.

In some ways I am the Sisyphus of pragmatic idealism <let some philosopher try and tease out the contradictory truth in that>. In The Myth of Sisyphus we view a man’s futile search for meaning, unity, and clarity in the face of an unintelligible world devoid of God and eternal truths or values and, yet, it is suggested we should never quit in the face of seeming futility but rather “no, it requires revolt.”

That said. I am fairly sure it is within the final chapter we view the situation of Sisyphus, the guy in Greek mythology who was condemned to repeat forever the same meaningless task of pushing a boulder up a mountain, only to see it roll down again. It is here in which far too often we ignore the conclusion:“The struggle itself … is enough to fill a man’s heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.”

============

“I leave Sisyphus at the foot of the mountain. One always finds one’s burden again. But Sisyphus teaches the higher fidelity that negates the gods and raises rocks. He too concludes that all is well. This universe henceforth without a master seems to him neither sterile nor futile. Each atom of that stone, each mineral flake of that night-filled mountain, in itself, forms a world. The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man’s heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.”

Albert Camus

=======

Many people just do not want to get out of bed in the morning. I am not one of those people <and, I admit, there are times I don’t understand the people who do not want to get up and get doing>. In my head it can be just as hard for those of us who always keep going as it is for those who find it hard to get going.

‘Hard’ is hard in my book.

Sure. There are days when I find myself trudging along stubbornly rather than bounding along battling. but no matter what I just cannot envision any alternative to doing.

“Doing” is what I do.

I kind of figure that doing is the only thing that will enable the pragmatic practical ‘better shit’ I believe needs to be done versus the ‘bad shit’ that may be done … if I am not doing my good shit.

And, you know what? I am doing it in 20162017 2018 and I envision doing it in 20172018 2019.

===============

“I’m not into convincing people I’m worthy.

I’m into people who’ll convince me on my worst days that I’m still worth the world.”

Reyna Biddy

=================

I have said before and will continue to say … I am not an optimist. I may be slightly idealist with regard to the inherent good in people and the belief that the arc of history bends toward what is right versus what is wrong … but an optimist I am not.

I am far too cynical and far too much of a pragmatist.

Oh. Yeah. That word ‘idealistic’ or ‘Idealism.’ I am always hesitant to toss that one out because far too often someone wants to add on ‘infantile’ or ‘unrealistic’ to it.

Maybe in my version of idealism there isn’t fantasy but rather pragmatic understanding that people do bad shit and people do good shit and that you either seek out those who do the good shit, and want to do the good shit, or sit back and let the bad shit-ters do the voodoo they do.

I refuse to let the bad shit-ters win.

I refuse even when faced with uncertainty or faced with some asshats who think their version of what good shit is the right shit.

That is my attitude. It was my attitude in 2016 2017. It has been my attitude for years. It will be my attitude in 2017 2018. And, I imagine, it will be my attitude until the day I die.

Here is what I <and all of us> have going for me in 20172018 2019.

The future is uncertain. It isn’t written in stone.

Yeah. Sure. The pessimistic ‘we are doomed’ people seem have a more certain view of the future – one in which it is impossible to imagine an alternative future to be optimistic about.

That seems silly to me.

I do not think it is optimistic to still find each day too short to get done what I want to get done and too short to do all the good shit I know should be done. That’s not optimism … that is simply a desire to do something and, preferably, to do good shit.

Remember. Doing is what I do.

If I were to say one thing about myself with regard to what I am good at <and I mostly think I am average at best> it would be my ability to get up every day and find some good shit to do. I don’t really care about the day itself nor do I pay much attention to whether any particular situation is good or bad — I just wake up every day thinking it is going to be too short to do all the good shit I want to do.

But. That there will be another ‘too short day’ the following day and I will wake up that day and get going all over again. That is my 20172018 2019. That is the only thing I find certain about the year.

…….. “But … I am doing something …………..”

That is neither hopeful nor is it optimistic that is pragmatic, practical and focused on contributing the arc of Life that I believe in.

Do I now what I am doing?

Hell no. But I am doing. And that is my attitude for 2017, 2018, 2019 and beyond.

There truly are few certainties in this world … but … I do believe that inevitably good trumps bad and that good shit gets done by people who do not believe bad shit is better. That is my attitude for 20172018 2019. And I tend to believe 20172018 2019 will be a shitload better than 20162017 2018 if more people had this attitude. I think we would all be able to do more good shit if we all believed each day was still too short for all the good shit we want to do.

“Happy New Year to all, including to my many enemies and those who have fought me and lost so badly they just don’t know what to do. Love!”

=====

“Sportsmanship for me is when a guy walks off the court and you really can’t tell whether he won or lost, when he carries himself with pride either way.”

–

Jim Courier

============

The Olympic motto:

“The important thing in the Games is not winning but taking part.

The essential thing is not conquering but fighting well.”

=================

Well. Trump is going to remind us all of a lot of shit we want to teach our children <by reminding us of what we don’t want them to do and be>. Yeah. How scary is that?

We shake our heads at a 70 year old man over something we wouldn’t even want our 15 year old to do.

Today? Being a bad winner <and how good leaders are never bad winners>.

So. We all know what a bad loser is, but maybe we should actually talk more about what a bad winner is. That may sound strange because … well … I mean, c’mon, who would have thought someone who wins would need a lesson on how to actually be a winner.

Uhm. And who would have thought we would have to teach someone this lesson, especially someone who would be in a position to run a large organization let alone a country.

Uhm. Could you imagine a new CEO of a company who just beat out a rival in an organization for a promotion tweeting this out to all their employees? <no … no sane person could>.

Trump has a problem <okay … several> but this tweet reflects a lack of understanding on how to be a leader, how to be a good winner and that there is a difference between competitiveness mentality and a “win at all cost” mentality.

Competitors compete, compete hard, and accept the win or the loss … warts & all. Sometimes we competitors know we got a little lucky, maybe the chips fell our way because we worked hard & practiced hard, but recognize that even then the chips could have fallen the other way.

Built into our competitiveness is a belief we should win, but that on any given day we could lose.

This type of competitiveness tends to reflect itself in being a ‘good winner’ attitudinally. A little humility. A little respect for the competition. And, unless the competitor was a total asshole, an understanding that they may have lost, but they were not losers.

Someone who has to lead an organization and wants to be successful embraces this attitude.

Now. A ‘win at all costs’ mentality is a double edged bad sword.

Not only do you compete differently <rules are more suggestions than restrictions>, but your wins are an unblemished unassailable win in your mind.

Black and white – I won, you lost.

No warts. No maybes. No ‘it was close.’ Only ‘win.’

This type of competitiveness tends to not reflect upon the competition itself and that maybe, just maybe, your competition is worthy of being your friend or respected acquaintance not as a ‘loser’ but rather ‘someone with the same intent.’ This type of competitiveness rarely reflects any version of sportsmanship.

Someone who has to lead an organization and embraces this attitude does not foster a healthy culture, does not encourage unity but rather incites cut throat aggressive competitiveness, cliques and divisiveness <and a shit load of brown nosing>.

The latter is Trump. And his New Year ’s Eve tweet tells us this. Trump reflects the worst type of lesson as a leader and as a role model.

And I don’t need Trump to make this point. Watch or read the news and you will read day after day incidents displaying the loss of sportsmanship and respect for authority and opponents.

Refs, umpires and coaches are verbally and physically assaulted.

Parents are sometimes excessive in the way they push their kids to be the best.

Coaches are demanding perfection from their players and punish them when they give anything less.

Trump?

Trump just calls people who didn’t vote for him ‘losers’.

Trump demeans media that fairly criticizes him as ‘dishonest’ or ‘failing.’

Trump demeans loyalty of followers but does not share loyalty of they cannot contribute to the win.

I imagine my main issue, beyond the fact this type of competitiveness does not encourage unity, is that I expect my President to be a role model for ‘better’ and not play to the worst of us.

And while I abhor bad winners I have a larger issue with what Mr. President Elect Trump is doing.

Children learn by example. We need to be extremely careful that kids do not get mixed messages from mentors and role models.

So what example are they getting from Trump? How to be a bad winner.

<and I am not sure he cares what lesson he is sharing with the young or if he is simply oblivious to his responsibility to be a role model>

He won. He is going to be our president <note: even of the “losers & enemies”>. He needs to start acting like a good winner and a tough respectful competitor and, well, act like a fucking leader and not a ‘loser’.

Look.

It is an honor and privilege to play a game and compete at a high level.

It is an honor and a privilege to compete for the presidency and serve as a president.

It is NOT an honor and a privilege to win – that is reserved for the competition itself. The win itself deserves respect.

That is what we all need to remember and teach our children.

Competition in and of itself is supposed to be about being the best we are capable of and respecting our own abilities as well as respecting others regardless of whether their best is better than our best.

Sports are inherently competitive <hence the reason there is a winner and a loser>. Life is inherently competitive <hence the reasons some people get promotions and some do not>.

And, let’s face it; competition brings out the best, and worst, in everyone. But I imagine my point then is that competition, and sportsmanship, inevitably is about character. And that competition, and winning or losing, makes a person’s real character come out.

Oh. I hate to break the news to everyone, competition and how you handle it takes work and training and shaping and thoughtfulness.

Sportsmanship SHOULD be simple. But it’s not. Losing hurts and winning can easily create feelings of blinding euphoria.

You can teach principles of good sportsmanship to anyone but, in the end, it’s about each person & experience.

Children watch.

They see cheating, lying, badmouthing, complaining to officials … all of which are reflections of someone’s character. More people need to take responsibility <and not blame “the game” or “the moment” or … well … anything>.

I suggest Mr. President-elect do so.

If you win, you do so with grace <because if you do even your competitors will respect you … and potentially follow you>.

If you lose, you do so with grace < because if you do even your competitors will respect you … and potentially follow you>.

Cheaters do win. Maybe not philosophically, but in the win/loss column. That is where I like to point out to people winning or losing is about character.

There are a couple of scoreboards for people who play sports.

One is the win/loss record.

One is a life scoreboard.

Sportsmanship shows up on the life scoreboard. While I wish more people would pay attention to that second scoreboard I am fairly sure with our new President, who possibly embodies the penultimate ‘bad winner’, it is going to be tougher and tougher to teach our young people what matters.

=======

believe in the truth.
I believe that every good thought I have,
All men shall have.

Kenneth Patchen

========

This new year’s tweet from Trump was horrible. Horrible not just from a personal perspective but also from a business leader perspective <no sane CEO or president of a company would ever send a tweet out like this> and also from a President’s perspective <who supposedly is seeking to unite a country … all 320 million people … not just his 60 million>.

Trump is doing everything we teach our children not to do if they win.

Which makes me ask: how can it be that a person who can’t even articulate a New Year’s wish is going to be the leader of a country I love?

He is a playing a dangerous game. And I wish he would play the game differently.

I respected Jim Courier as a tennis player and I respect his words even more … “sportsmanship for me is when a guy walks off the court and you really can’t tell whether he won or lost, when he carries himself with pride either way.”

Trump has walked off the court and refuses to carry himself with pride, or even a dose of humility let alone respect the win. And if one of his heinous surrogates comes back at me and suggests “they cannot accept the win” or “they are undermining his election” and that he isn’t creating the issue in public I have two words for you — “shut up.”

If he chooses to lead … he owns his win, he owns the narrative and he owns the topic. He has not elected to show leadership yet.

This may be the understatement of the year … he is not a gracious winner.

This New Year’s Eve Trump tweet is an embarrassment to the presidency.

I expect more, and better, from any leader let alone my President Elect.

“It’s messing people up, this social pressure to “find your passion” and “know what it is you want to do”. It’s perfectly fine to just live your moments fully, and marvel as many small and large passions, many small and large purposes enter and leave your life. For many people there is no realization, no bliss to follow, no discovery of your life’s purpose. This isn’t sad, it’s just the way things are.

Stop trying to find the forest and just enjoy the trees. “

=

Sally Coulter

———

“Passion has little to do with euphoria and everything to do with patience. It is not about feeling good. It is about endurance. Like patience, passion comes from the same Latin root: pati. It does not mean to flow with exuberance. It means to suffer.”

=

Mark Z. Danielewski

—

I originally wrote this piece, Don’t Find Your Passion, in September 2014 and it is possibly my most unpopular piece I have written to date. Yesterday I felt slightly vindicated when Psychology Today just published a piece called “Why ‘Follow Your Passion’ is Terrible Advice.”

I have always struggled with the ‘find your passion’ advice. Ok. In fact. I believe most ‘find your passion’ advice is bullshit. I say its bullshit mostly because passion and excellence are not inextricably intertwined. In fact. Passion and purpose are not inextricably linked. In other words, I may be passionate about something, but may actually suck at doing that ‘something’.

I may be passionate about something, but it doesn’t feed some grand purpose <in the world or even to myself>.

Ok. The sucking thing I mentioned. Think about it this way – maybe I don’t suck at it, but maybe it is just not what I am best at doing.

Let me be clear. I am very happy for those who have a passion for something specific. And I would like to think everyone should be passionate about something. My point is that, unfortunately, the ‘something’ just may not be the thing you build your career and life around because you just may not be good at it enough to master it enough beyond maybe simple competence (but you can still enjoy it).

What makes me think I am qualified to say this whole follow your passion is bullshit? I am not sure I personally have a singular passion … except for thinking. And, boy, let me tell you, that is not a skill you can be paid for in the business world.

Does that mean I have to settle? Of course not.

Getting paid for thinking is a bonus.

But I assume I get paid <when I do get paid> for something I must be good at <or someone wouldn’t pay me>. In other words, I have to actually do something, not just think.

Does this mean I am grumpy or unsatisfied because I am not ‘following my passion’? Nope.

Practically speaking, I understand that what I am passionate about:

<a> there are more brilliant thinkers than I out there in the world, and

<b> thinking without doing has significantly less value than thinking & doing. And by value I mean value to others and, frankly, value to self. The doing shows value. It shows the thinking wasn’t simply some pie in the sky rhetoric which ends up in some ‘nice but impractical’ idea folder gathering dust in some vacant office.

Next. I think the whole ‘find your passion’ or ‘find your purpose’ is overly simple in its guidance because following your passion is tricky.

No.

Let me take that back.

It is actually dangerous. If you are not careful, it can empty you.

——-

“They told me to pour my heart into everything I do. So that’s what I did, I poured and poured and poured.

Now they ask me why I’m so empty.”

(via florential)

———

This is why I am always hesitant to flippantly suggest ‘do what you are passionate about’ or ‘find something you love.’ I tend to suggest ‘find something you are incredibly good at … and see if you love it.’ In fact if you do that not only do you find out what you are really good at, but you also start jettisoning things you don’t like <or are passionate about>.

Next. I sometimes hear people suggest they are passionate about ‘results’ <sales, money, some outcome>. Well. Sorry. That is bullshit <to define passion that way>.

Ok. Maybe it is just lazy living. Lazy in that you take the easy way out when discussing passion or purpose by suggesting a result as validation for value in life and life pursuits.Lazy in that you are using results because you just don’t want to admit you may not exactly like what you are doing.

Sorry.

Some things just cannot be measured. Like … well … passion.

Ok. That said. I am going to let the ‘I am passionate about results’ people off the hook today because the real issue is that society shouldn’t be forcing people to even have to HAVE some grand passion or purpose.

Let’s be clear. Neither passion nor purpose needs to be grandiose.

They can be little – the trees and not the forest type of Life direction.

Because, frankly, life is mostly avoiding run face first into trees or sitting and enjoying a moment under a tree and not seeking some way to fly above and see a forest.

So what would I suggest instead of finding your passion or purpose as a guiding principle?

Seek to maximize the moments the best you can. Seek to find “good” and … well … be happy with good <and this includes just being good at what you do>.

As the initial quote suggests … larger passions and purposes will inevitably glide through different moments. Don’t worry that you do not ‘own’ the larger purpose … just enjoy the little glimpses of passion and purpose … and maybe even the variety.

——

“All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.”

J.R.R Tolkien

—–

What this all really means is that maybe the only decision you truly need to make has nothing to do with some grand passion or huge purpose … but rather simply deciding what to do with the time … the moment. If you do that well … I imagine you will plant a shitload of prosperous trees. And, in the end, will have built a forest for yourself you can be proud of.

Some of you may now be saying “well, shit” now. Don’t. All advice is just that, advice. Ultimately you choose what is best for you. You shouldn’t be using my advice, or anyone’s for that matter, to choose your path for you. Decide what is best for you and, well, go prosper in Life. But. I will suggest I am fairly sure you will be happier if you are doing something you are good at, so maybe start there.

“We are torn between nostalgia for the familiar and an urge for the foreign and strange. As often as not, we are homesick most for the places we have never known.”

—–

Carson Mccullers

=============

I would suggest the number one challenge to progress & “living in the present” is old things.

Ok. Not old things, per se, but how the idea of old things resides in our heads, hearts & minds.

For some reason old things have this incredible knack to not only gain value over time but also increase our hunger for them.

Sure. Not all things. Some old things suck, we know they suck and are glad to leave them in some scrap heap in the rear view mirror.

But the old things that didn’t suck? Whew. Memories and old things have an incredible magical way of shedding the bad and accumulating good.

Okay. Maybe they don’t accumulate good but rather ‘basic familiarity’ or ‘low level contentment’ inevitably take on a disproportionately positive value. They become slightly twisted totems that people are clearly drawn to and become touchstones of ‘when things were better.’

Shit.

“when things were better.”

Who wouldn’t have a hunger for that?

The problem is that I don’t think what most people realize, or maybe recognize, is:

that it is ideas and thinking which create the light that eliminates the darkness of the fear of the unknown

that new inevitably outshines old, and

that nostalgia is best found, mostly, when you find new familiar things and new habits to replace them.

I, personally, have never really seen the allure of most old things. I love old buildings and love museums but, to me, they are simply way stations to new ideas, new thinking and new behavior. To me the old seems muted and I desire to live loud & bold.

===========

“If you ask me what I came to do in this world, I, an artist, will answer you: I am here to live out loud.”

Émile Zola

=================

All that said. I understand the fact old things have a strange hunger to many people.

In fact. I would argue that ‘old things’ is an equal opportunity employer.

What I mean by that is we far too often conflate the desire for old things, or holding on to what was old, with generations. Old people hunger for old things and younger people hunger for new things.

This is simplistically misguided thinking.

When we do this we miss the bigger challenge old things place in front of us. Old things have an insatiable hunger for the human desire for familiarity and the desire for security that can be found within each and every one of us. That insatiable hunger sits in our stomachs and minds in a variety of ways and degrees depending on the individual … regardless of their age.

That hunger resides in older people AND younger people. Ignoring that means ignoring some basic realities which can be quite costly as you make observations, decision and choices.

This is particularly true in business.

Look. All of us, everyone, even the riskiest of risk takers like having some safety net.

Not all safety nets are created equal or look similar … but 99.9% of us seek some version of a safety net.

Old things tend to offer us that safety net. I say that so when we start ridiculing someone, old or young, for appearing to hunger a little too much for old things that maybe we … well … stop ridiculing and start thinking about it a little.

Maybe all someone is doing is seeking their version of a safety net.

Maybe they are seeking something a little familiar and maybe something that offers a little mental security in a world which, frankly, seems to consistently try and demolish all that is familiar & secure.

Maybe we should take a moment and make sure there is a safety net before we do something.

Regardless. As I noted when I wrote about ‘optimal newness’ we all desire, and like, some balance. We all find comfort in familiarity and some versions of nostalgia and find excitement in something new. Old things have a strange hunger for the desire for some familiarity & some ‘secured clarity’ that resides in every single person.

As a studier of behaviors and attitudes I pay attention to this.

As a business guy I pay attention to this.

Old things have earned the right to be totems of times better and familiar.

We should allow them their hunger. And, yet, as with almost everything in Life … we need to insure people, individuals, manage their diet in order to live healthy lives and have healthy professional careers.

As I just told a business leader last week who was expressing frustration with regard to how some employees were ‘holding on to old things with ragged claws’: people aren’t nostalgic for old memories they are more nostalgic for familiarity & security.

Ponder that. Because the conclusion to that statement is … if you can offer them some familiarity, and some security, with new things, old things lose their luster.

“There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things.”

—

Niccolo Machiavelli

===========

“For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order.”

—

Niccolò Machiavelli

======

So. This is a discussion I had with myself recently with regard to change and creating a new order of things.

The mental discussion centered on two questions:

is it really chaos <blank slate change> ?

or is it more often reordering <assigning disparate ‘things’ into a new alignment> ?

I thought about this as I scanned the words of two of the most skewered policy makers of all time – Machiavelli and Kissinger. King makers and country breakers are thoughts that come to mind with those two names.

And, yet, both Diplomacy <Kissinger> and The Prince <Machiavelli> are must reads for anyone interested in foreign policy and diplomatic leadership. They both made me rethink some things I have thought about change and leading it.

The main thing I thought of was … well … the ‘leading’ part. Leading is what leaders do. That’s what you get paid to do. You see where you want the business to go, look at what needs to change to make it happen and then start leading the change.

Both Kissinger and Machiavelli discussed this as ‘shaping the arc of history.’ I would imagine neither would balk at a statement like this …“we will move forward, because if we do not move forward, what is to be said about us?”

Now.

If you read any Machiavelli he can come across as an arrogant immoral power hungry egotistical asshat.

If you read any Kissinger he can come across as an arrogant immoral power hungry egotistical asshat.

But both also can be read as incredibly smart insightful global thinkers whose mindset was always shaping the arc of history and countries rather than adapting to the world at hand. It is within the ‘shaping’ where both of them identified leadership. Their version of ‘shaping’ meant doing things to instigate change as well as envisioning what could be and stepping in to guide toward it or stop it from happening <which is easy to criticize in reflecting>.

Machiavelli unequivocally espoused an amoral approach to obtaining power and counseled the ambitious Prince to be prepared to commit heinous acts, acts most of us would not consider viable actions to take, in order to rise in position.

I am not espousing that.

The bigger learnings arise as you dig a little deeper into what he writes where you will find the wiser kernels of truth.

The biggest truth? To be a reformer, to be a change agent, to lead in the introduction of a new order of things, well, you have to shape the arc of change that others are instigating.

Ah. Now this is where I had to start doing some rethinking in my own head. While I do prescribe to the ‘shape the arc of history & change’ leadership thought, I, as most of us do, see this as envisioning and creating the necessary change not shaping the arc of change. This is where change leadership gets tricky <if you accept that a leader wants to shape the arc of change>.

There are millions of articles, billions of pieces of advice, hundreds of designed programs and dozens of studied cases with regard to leading change. Leadership change is big time business.

Well. Here is the problem with all that change wisdom.

Unfortunately.

Most change is actually not leader driven, but rather people driven.

Yeah. Sometimes we, as leaders, are so focused on the change we want to make or encourage we ignore, or are oblivious to, the never-ending embers of change within the population of the business.

And, yes, I purposefully used “embers.”

Every healthy organization is teeming with ideas of what should be done as well as about what is being done — let’s call these ‘the embers within the population.’ Inevitably the embers will die, flame up and then out or become a forest fire. Part of what a leader needs to discern is which fires will flame out on their own, which flames may start burning uncontrollably and which fires should be nurtured.

But, suffice it to say, embers exist in any organization and population worth a shit. Some is discontent, some may simply be passion that just needs to be directed & focused and some, well, some are the embers of a real revolution <real change>. And even revolution can take on different faces.

There can be an organizational changing revolution — one which demands leadership to change or die.

There can be an organizational shifting revolution — one which demands the leadership to recognize a new & better way of doing things or thinking about things.

But when change comes from the population … leaders get uncomfortable. This discomfort is beyond the simple ‘it was not my idea’ crap.

Think about it this way.

A leader’s natural reaction to almost anything is to control.

Out of control = bad.

Control = good.

The difficulty with people driven change is that it automatically falls into the ‘out of control’ bucket in a leaders head because they <a> didn’t think of it or <b> they didn’t instigate it or <c> they didn’t even create the arc.

This is where I really needed to think. Because, as a leader, I could discuss leadership driven change until the end of time. But managing and guiding and fostering population driven change? Well. That’s different. Other than ‘idea boxes’ and ‘brain storming meetings’ and ‘organizational improvement ideas’ most of us leader types don’t actively think about change management as ‘employee revolution management.’

It demands a different set of skills. You would have to dump many of the tried & true tools. You would have to maybe not throw out the old handbook of ‘change management’, but you certainly have to put on more of a ‘herder cap’ and a ‘respond to the context and situation hat’ rather than leading and ‘linear responses.’

Now. I will suggest that any leader who wants to keep their sanity shouldn’t invest a shitload of energy trying to uncover embers. I would rather suggest time is better spent continuously feeding oxygen into the population so that the embers which could flame up do so and the ones which will inevitably suffocate and smother themselves will do so on their own.

<everyone should note that dictator and autocrat type leaders would absolutely hate that last thought>

Good leaders just need to face the fact that sometimes opportunity does not always arise when you want it to. Sometimes you need to create the opportunity <because it is the right time for you> and sometimes you have shape the opportunity that is placed in your lap.

I will say that population revolutions, more often than not, are grounded in some real pragmatic and positive thoughts. The direction may be misguided but the embers are real and warm and worth nurturing.

I say that because this means revolutions driven by people more often than not exist in a structured world, not chaos, defined by some natural laws of behavior which are sometimes missed because of the revolutionary weird, incredible things that begin happening. A leader has to try to make sense of all aspects and bring the worlds together to create the necessary change <in this case … this is where the leadership occurs and not in the definition of the change>.

I will also suggest, as I think about his, it is often not productive to try to understand and explain the origins and consequences of ‘embers’ in any sensible way.

It is not productive because where you isolate the ‘logical beginnings’ you will most likely be creating ‘logic’ which wasn’t really there — it only exists in hindsight. That thought can be maddening to a leader. We like logic, pragmatism and reasons to point to. But change, when driven by the population, is not your change to define … it is to guide.

The reasons are the reasons, their reasons are their reasons … but as long as the change is reasonable and offers a reason to encourage … the origins have little relevance. You have to jump on board, buckle up, hold on tight and shape an arc of history, of change, which you do not instigate but want to ‘lead.’

In all of this <going back to both Kissinger & Machiavelli> I am not advocating suspending commonplace ethics as a means to achieve your ends, but I will suggest innovating and radical change is hard. It’s hard not because people don’t like change but because, more often than not, real change translates into real loss to those embracing the ‘old order.’ Humans, in general, have a strong aversion to loss and those who actually have a lot to lose … well … they have a lot stronger aversion to loss.

That means they will do their best to resist and block it.

Uhm. That includes us leaders too.

If it is revolution change, change driven by the population and not by us, we actually have the potential to lose a lot. And to grasp this opportunity you have to face your natural strong aversion to the potential loss. This is where I believe Kissinger& Machiavelli missed a point <well … they may not have missed it … their vision was always to shape and not adapt to what is being shaped>.

You cannot always control everything. Sometimes you have to choose what you will control and accept what you cannot.

And that is why I vehemently balk when Machiavelli counsels leaders to avoid the common values of justice, mercy, temperance, wisdom, and love of their people in preference to the use of cruelty, violence, fear, and deception. That is a sign of ‘control everything’ to, me …and control at any cost.

I don’t buy it. I don’t like it. And I will not do it.

While Machiavelli certainly views implementing a ‘new order’ under the guise of a realist or a pragmatist, I believe there are certain rules of engagement that must be maintained to insure an outcome that retains some purpose <and soul> beyond simple greed or personal enhancement.

Change comes from a variety of directions. And I can almost guarantee that you, as a leader, are not the only ones facing major strategic decisions – in general and with change. You can assume all actors in the play are contemplating change & decisions <hence the embers>. And every ember is building to their fire in some fundamental way. Deciding its place in the order of things. deciding the goals of any confrontations. Deciding its purpose. Deciding its meaning and, ultimately, deciding the meaning of their revolution and grappling with an aftermath often difficult to envision.

That is where this type of change leadership occurs. Envisioning the aftermath of something you didn’t instigate. Envisioning your relationship to a revolution not fully settled and not fully defined.

You have to assume the responsibility of a signpost to an awakened change which is being driven by the needs & wants & desires of the general population/people. This actually means you have got to fundamentally rethink who you are as a leader as well as how you envision your role as a leader. In this case leading means envisioning where it all goes rather than having thought out where it goes <and pointing the way>.

A change agent leader responding to a desire for revolution needs shed some of the current situation where it’s appropriate and convert the embers & fire into efforts to stop the bad and force the good.

Look.

Taking the lead in the introduction of a new order of things can take on a variety of leadership vectors. One is creating & shaping and another is guiding & shaping.

Yet, time, is indifferent to what you want and moves the same pace all the time.”

—

Me

======

How long do projects take? This is possibly one of the most discussed topics in business conferences room around the world. “More time” is possibly the most used phrase in those meeting rooms. Which gets me to “100” and what was known as Napoleon’s Hundred Days campaign to point out how much shit can be done in 100 days and some thoughts on the challenges a great leader has <and leadership in general>.

Oh. First. History.

After kicking the crap out of almost every country and general for over a decade or so Napoleon abdicates his throne and on May 4, 1814 Napoleon is exiled to the exotically barren island of Elba. After kicking around on this miserable little island for a while Napoleon realizes that retirement ain’t as cracked up as people made it out to be and in February 1815 he says “the heck with retirement … I miss the whole leadership thing <that I was pretty darn good at>”and high tails it off the island.

Napoleon did what he always did when he was in trouble and what he was <frankly> great at, he went on the offensive. With his newly raised army of around 75000 troops, he attacked Belgium, where the British and Prussian armies were camped. His hope was that he could separately destroy these armies before the Russians and Austrians arrived. The British army was commanded by the Duke of Wellington and the Prussian army was commanded by Marshal Gebhard Blucher. The French army engaged the Prussians first at Ligny, on June 16, 1815. The battle was either a slight win for Napoleon or just relatively indecisive <although imminently winnable by Napoleon should a domino or two fallen his way> and both sides regrouped.

Napoleon decided next to attack the English, then at Waterloo, a village near Brussels.

On June 18 1815, the British and the Prussians defeated Napoleon. The British/Prussian victory signaled the end of a more-than-ten- year period filled with war <and a boatload of Napoeon victories>.

At Waterloo, Napoleon had 72,000 troops, Wellington commanded 68,000 troops, and Blucher 45,000 <this becomes relevant later when I point out that “they” had more resources than “he”>.

Suffice it to say there were a boatload of good and iffy decisions made by both sides, but maybe the biggest was because the ground was muddy on the day of the battle Napoleon made the critical decision of waiting for the ground to dry before attacking Wellington’s forces in the afternoon. This delay allowed Blucher’s forces to reach Waterloo in time to make a difference in the outcome of the battle. While the French made assault after assault on the British, they were slow to make progress, and Blucher’s Prussians advanced against the French army’s eastern flank.

Marshal Ney, one of Napoleon’s best commanders <called ‘the bravest of the brave’>, orchestrated a combined attack of soldiers and artillery, and came very close to breaking Wellington’s line. However, Napoleon could not reinforce Ney’s attack, since he was forced to divert a large number of troops from fighting the British, including his crack Imperial Guard, in order to face the Prussians.

Now. Second. Let me try and make several points relevant to business and projects.

100 days.

A shitload can happen in 100 days if you know what you are doing, are a good leader and have a great support <management> team. In fact you can gather almost 100,000 personnel and the materials needed to sustain them and move them hundreds of miles and get them to perform at the highest level if you really have your shit together.

My first point. 100 days is a lifetime if you use it well. Businesses can dither around and make excuses, but if you cannot get something done in 100 days you should probably be looking for some other business to conduct.

If someone <Napoleon> can swing almost 100,000 men into action and in a span of three or four days of battle at the end of 100 days almost win a victory when outnumbered and outresourced, it seems pretty logical that we in business can certainly make a widget in 100 days.

My second point. 100 days doesn’t have a huge margin for error when doing something big and important.

Everything has to happen fairly efficiently and everyone has to be aligned.

It helps when you have a tried & true team in place. The right people at the right place at the right time. Not just the workers but the management too.

In today’s business this is the trickiest.

100 days is a lifetime if you have the right team.

100 days and you can still have victory <not just show up or ‘get it done’> if you have the right team.

100 days never seems like enough if you lose … ponder that … because I see too many times when it doesn’t end well that a business will sit around and say “if we only had more time!” … 100 days was not enough.

Baloney. It wasn’t the time. It was the team.

The importance of the <management> team:

It seems rarely mentioned but Napoleon not only glimpsed victory at Waterloo … it was his to be had. I will let all the military experts tear apart the minutiae in the decisions made that day. From a business perspective the key to the loss <to me> was simple. Napoleon didn’t have his tried & true chief of staff, Marshal Berthier, on this campaign. Napoleon sorely missed the legendary Marshal Berthier as chief of staff, and Marshal Soult <his replacement> was a good, but not as good, substitute.

Oh. And there was a domino effect on the entire management team as people shifted to assume slightly new roles.

Napoleon was the master at making on field decisions and yet permitting independent decisionmaking — empowering his best to do their best. And, let’s be clear, Napoleon possibly built the greatest team outside of the 1927 New York Yankees <murderers Row>. By Waterloo several stood on the sidelines, were dead or were managing from a different role than they were accustomed to. But. Napoleon’s management team, his marshals and generals below the marshals, were the best of the best.

Now. It is possible Napoleon should have shifted his management style to accommodate the shift in the personnel, but that is speculative thinking <because if he shifted his style who knows how that would have affected everything else>.

100 days would have been nothing if the team was in place.

Whoa. So I am suggesting one person … and not even ‘the leader’ can make that big a difference?

You bet. In business this chief of staff person is:

<a> reviled by the young employees as old, conservative and an order taker for the leader,

<b> loved & hated by middle management as they love the fact this person deciphers the vague but inspirational thinking of the leader and gives them the specifics on what to do but hates that this person is not the most creative thinker in the room and is always bitching about why you cannot have the resources you claim you need to do the job you are being given, and

<c> appreciated by the leader because this person can decipher what you are really thinking, get people to do it and while maddeningly conservative <versus the leader> they have a tendency to stop the leader from doing something too incredibly stupid <or risky>.

This person is key to the success of a great leader and an organization. Napoleon saw things on a battlefield that no one else could ever see. He could see things before they happened. But that kind of person <as a general or in business> needs someone to coordinate and corral the incredibly talented independent thinkers & managers who will actually implement the vision. And it takes a while to learn how to decipher a truly visionary leader.

Soult was a good general but probably a novice decipherer. In addition by shifting Soult into chief of staff all the other marshals began assuming different roles & responsibilities.

You get it. You need someone to decipher as well as you need someone to implement and in a 100 days it helps if the people who know what to do are in familiar roles.

How a leader is judged:

Yes. This matters in getting things done because, well, if you lose you are a loser and are inevitably second guessed.

Napoleon was arguably the greatest general in history <if you want to be nitpicky you could say the greatest offensive general in history>. I am probably wrong but I struggle to think of one battle in his history that Napoleon had more resources <men & artillery> than his enemy and yet he constantly drove on the offensive … and won.

No leader has ever done more with less than Napoleon.

At Waterloo he had just won a phenomenal battle at Ligny two days before, after one of the greatest blitzkriegs ever mounted. During his lightning advance, he had managed to separate two major armies who knew he was coming, and inflict simultaneous defeats on both of them. At Waterloo two of the greatest commanders in all of history faced each other. Wellington, master of defense, was in an entrenched position that he had chosen, and counted on the arrival of Blucher. Napoleon considered the Prussians under control by Grouchy, and had von Bulow not arrived in Napoleon’s flank and rear, the French would undoubtedly have won, and we’d be reading about Napoleon’s finest victory, Ney’s brilliant attacks etc.

Oh. But he lost.

Winning and losing is often defined by the slimmest of margins. Sometimes even by chance. But most likely it is defined somewhere within the organization and how the organization, and its people, take action.

That is somewhere within the dependence upon solid visionary direction and independence to react to the situation.

101 days wouldn’t have given Napoleon a victory. It wasn’t time <or the lack of it>. It was more likely the management team <or possibly his lack of effectiveness in communicating what he wanted to a new management team>.

Napoleon is typically judged by his two historical losses … Russia and Waterloo. Geez. Can’t a great general <leader> get a break?

Answer: Nope.

Leaders typically get defined by how they end and not all the good <or not so good> done inbetween. If you want to get things done, this is the burden in doing so.

Anyway.

100 days is a good reminder of what a great leader can do in 100 days as well as how slim a margin moving quickly gives you between victory and loss. But, please, please don’t tell me something can’t get done in a 100 days.